Heritage Imact Assessment for the Proposed Cultivation of New Lands at Upington, Gordonia Magisterial District, Northern Cape
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HERITAGE IMACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CULTIVATION OF NEW LANDS AT UPINGTON, GORDONIA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, NORTHERN CAPE Required under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999). Report for: Pieter Badenhorst Professional Services P.O. Box 1058, Wellington, 7654 Tel: 076 584 0822 Email: [email protected] On behalf of: ISF Trust Dr Jayson Orton ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd 6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Tel: (021) 788 8425 | 083 272 3225 Email: jayson@asha‐consulting.co.za 22 June 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Pieter Badenhorst Professional Services to conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of new agricultural lands on the farm Vaal Koppies No. 40, at Upington, Northern Cape. The farm lies on the southern side of the Orange River, to the southeast of the town. The lands are proposed for the planting of vineyards. The study area was generally flat, but the western part was more undulating where one of the non‐perennial stream beds had incised into the underlying geology. The ground surface is covered in much gravel and in some places bedrock protrudes. Vegetation cover is minimal, although along the largest stream in the west there was a fairly dense but narrow band of bush. Archaeological stone artefacts were identified across the site but the vast majority were isolated occurrences that formed part of the background scatter in the area. There were two places where it appears that Later Stone Age people may have camped close to a stream but both scatters were very low density and not of further concern. No mitigation is suggested. The N10 was also identified as a scenic route of limited significance. The development would contribute positively to the agricultural landscape, although, being 800 m from the N10, this will not make much difference to the scenic qualities of this section of the N10. Because there will not be any significant impacts to heritage resources, it is recommended that the development be allowed to proceed as planned with no further heritage work being required. It should be noted, however, that if any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution. ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 ii Glossary Background scatter: Artefacts whose spatial position is conditioned more by natural forces than by human agency Early Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 2 million and 20 000 years ago. Hand‐axe: A bifacially flaked, pointed stone tool type typical of the Early Stone Age. Later Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending over the last approximately 20 000 years. Middle Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 200 000 and 20 000 years ago. Abbreviations ASAPA: Association of Southern African LSA: Later Stone Age Professional Archaeologists MSA: Middle Stone Age BAR: Basic Assessment Report NEMA: National Environmental Management BIF: Banded iron formation Act (No. 107 of 1998) CRM: Cultural Resources Management NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25) of 1999 ESA: Early Stone Age SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources GPS: global positioning system Agency HIA: Heritage Impact Assessment SAHRIS: South African Heritage Resources Information System ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 iii Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.1. Project description ................................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Terms of reference ................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Scope and purpose of the report ............................................................................................. 6 1.4. The author ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.5. Declaration of independence ................................................................................................... 6 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................ 6 3. METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Literature survey ....................................................................................................................... 8 3.2. Field survey ............................................................................................................................... 8 3.3. Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4. Assumptions and limitations .................................................................................................... 8 4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 9 4.1. Site context ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.2. Site description ......................................................................................................................... 9 5. CULTURAL HERITAGE CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 10 5.1. Archaeological aspects ........................................................................................................... 10 5.2. Historical aspects .................................................................................................................... 11 6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY ............................................................................................ 11 6.1. Palaeontology ......................................................................................................................... 11 6.2. Archaeology ............................................................................................................................ 11 6.3. Historical / recent graffiti ....................................................................................................... 16 6.4. Cultural landscape and scenic route ...................................................................................... 17 6.5. Other heritage ........................................................................................................................ 17 6.6. Statement of significance ....................................................................................................... 18 6.7. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading ...................................................... 18 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS .......................................................................................................... 18 7.1. Archaeology ............................................................................................................................ 18 7.2. Cultural landscape .................................................................................................................. 19 8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 20 9. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 20 10. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 20 ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 iv 1. INTRODUCTION ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Pieter Badenhorst Professional Services to conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of new agricultural lands on the farm Vaal Koppies No. 40, at Upington, Northern Cape (Figure 1). The farm lies on the southern side of the Orange River, to the southeast of the town (Figure 2). N Mapsheet 2820 (Mapping information supplied by Chief Directorate: National Geo‐Spatial Information. Website: wwwi.ngi.gov.za) Figure 1: Map showing the approximate location of the site (red oval). Figure 2: Aerial view of the Upington area showing the location of the study area (proposed vineyard blocks shown in blue). ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 5 1.1. Project description It is intended to develop new agricultural lands for the cultivation of vineyards. The new lands will comprise of twenty‐one blocks of approximately 3.4 ha each and will serve as an expansion of the existing agricultural activities on the farm. 1.2. Terms of reference ASHA Consulting was asked to conduct a heritage impact assessment (HIA) that would meet the requirements of the relevant heritage authorities such that a decision on any further heritage work might be made. 1.3. Scope and purpose of the report A heritage